Judge Who Was Revealed As Anonymous Commenter Sues Newspaper For $50 Million

from the good-luck-there... dept

You may recall, a few weeks back, that the Cleveland Plain Dealer revealed that a regular commenter on the site was actually a local judge (who had recently threatened to jail a Plain Dealer reporter for not giving up his source on a story). While revealing the real identity of an anonymous commenter seems pretty sleazy, we did wonder about the boundaries for a news organization. If it's newsworthy who an anonymous commenter is, then at what point should a publication reveal that info? A judge making snide comments about a case she's involved with may, in fact, be newsworthy, and part of an investigative report might reveal that info. So could a newspaper claim that revealing who made the comments was newsworthy?

What's interesting is that she uses multiple comments from articles and columns written in the Plain Dealer about this debate after she was revealed. I'm not sure that's compelling. The columnists and reporters may have their own opinions separate from that of the newspaper itself. However, the defamation claims may have a bit more heft to them, as she claims that many of the statements made by the Plain Dealer were false and not verified. Still, $50 million seems extreme no matter how you look at it.